Why TOE is not accepted

For those reading this who want to know what was said about embryology by Darwin during the development of the theory, I refer you to Chapter 13 of Origins of Species Boy - does Darwin like his run-on sentences

When considering how the mechanism of heredity would work, Darwin had a hypothesis called pangenesis, which required gemmules or pangenes. Pangenes was later shortened to genes.So, in answer to your question: The answer is yes. He just didn't have enough evidence to know the details on how they might work...he had a hypothesis on how they worked that was later falsified.

I'd agree with that. Well, in the macroscopic world I tend towards agreement here. In the Quantum world, things aren't quite so nice. Indeed, if we had enough equipment and compuational resources, and knew all the relevant details, it might be possible to predict the lotter results.So you are right, DNA mutations might not be truly random, instead what mutates is the result of chemical interactions which can be defined, with enough foreknowledge it might be possible to predict what will happen - unless of course, quantum effects have an effect on the mutations, which might be the case given the scale we are working with.This is, of course, pedantics. It doesn't matter if they are truly random in the quantum sense of the word. The point is, that there are so many variables (including psychological and weather related variables) it is impossible to calculate all the mutations that will happen in a population...thus for all intents and purposes they are considered random.Seems suitably non-promlematic to me.

The principle reason has to be religious and not because the evidence is lacking.The idea that life has changed drammatically over the past few billion years is almost conclusive. The fossil record combined with with radio dating pretty much drives this home. YECers and IDers have failed to explain the fossil record without resorting to some unproven all-powerful jack-in-the-box that can magically remove any contradictions the evidence poses to their story.So, to be honest I don't think we need to consider the THEORY of evolution, because it is rare that someone will accept the event of evolution and not the theory as to why and how the event happened. Generally those that do, are the theistic evolutionists.It is totally acceptable to not accept a theory of gravity but it is a different thing entirely to not accept the event of gravity. The difference betweeen this scenario and evolution is that the event of evolution is unperceptable to human experience...we can only see the evidence it leaves behind rather than watching the event happen. This applies to all the theories that YECers and IDers might reject, plate tectonics, cosmology, radiology etc. Unfortunately for YECers and some IDers - all these events which take place longer than the experience of living memory all seem to agree with the ancient evolutionary theory or its timeline and disagree with a young earth.Interestingly, IDers often (and YECers sometimes) are entirely happy with Quantum Mechanics, despite the fact that it is impossible to directly observe the events, but only interpret the evidence that the events leave behind. Of course, IDers often latch on to the more controversial interpretations despite there being other interpretations. There is, at this time, only one interpretation of the evolution event that conforms to all known physical laws, yet IDers will insist that other, highly controversial interpretations should be given equal consideration, yet despite the fact there are many valid interpretations of QM, they tend to focus on only one.Why did I accept ToE? Two things, the many different lines of evidence are all in agreement and consistent with the Theory. The second is the same reason that randman rejects evolution. Creationists and IDers have time and time again used bogus arguments and equivication to convince others that they are right. May I point to the thermodynamics nonsense that is frequently touted? The 'other side' still uses these arguments, so why would I trust them when they use other arguments that I am less able to follow. Since I have to, in some degree, rely on authority, I look the the authority that has been more honest. I look to the authority that has better systems in place to detect fraud and dishonesty, with high penalties for indulging in them.I came to the debate because I heard that some people didn't accept evolution and I wanted to know why. I'm only slightly closer to an answer now than I was then. Despite what the opponents of evolution say it doesn't seem to be the evidence that leads to its non-acceptance.

Nail.Head.Hit.A scientific theory is the most plausible explanation for something than some other explanation. Better worded it would be something like the best explanation for a phenomenon that explains the most things in the best way and is not falsified. A theory which requires a hypothetical being with magic powers/omnipotency fails.Principle of parsominony.I suspect your problem with the Theory of Evolution seems to be that the thing it attempts to explain isn't something we have observed in full. If we accept that evolution happened the Theory to explain it seems to be awfully good, agreed? Probably not, however, without an alternative explanation for the evidence (that is the fossil evidence and its ilk) that doesn't involve hypothesising phenomenon for which there is no evidence (accelerated radio decay and all its problems, CPT, global floods that sort that fossils into a convenient order that coincides with relative dating techniques and seems to follow a transition of life form types), evolution is the only plausible explanation.

For the lurkers, we've already had a whole thread dedicated to this claim, and you didn't show that it was anything more than a sequence of mistakes and screwups in the system. The idea was that textbook makers were simply printing what their predecessors printed since little or no new work was being done in comparitive embryology. When somebody actually did the leg work (and I don't mean creationists writing about it in a popular press book), it was shown (not written about, but a variety of embryos were actually photographically compared, I still don't know why creation scientists, so convinced that the diagrams were in error didn't do this themselves) to be erroneous, and diagrams were modified. The whole, errors in science are corrected by its opponents philosophy (a systematic problem that if the errors are unchecked initially and become accepted, then there are little to no opponents to challenge it). Thus demonstrating that textbook makers don't check the work they print about; another systematic error. You failed substantiate your conspiracy theory any further when asked, you simply repeated it.However, if you have any actual evidence other than opinion, a second thread was opened just after the first one closed (it was principally set there to discuss pharyngeal arches but I'm sure it can be used if you have evidence for your claims and not just wild accusations). By all means take it into there...I'm happy to start the whole affair again.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 01-August-2005 01:40 PM

I would be happy to get to the bottom of this issue with you, as I was when last we discussed it. So, how about we take this to a more appropriate thread where we will have ample time (and be on topic) to discuss these issues.This isn't diversionary tactic. This thread is very active and thus about to close, and I really want to conclude this issue one way or another, I'm sure there is ground where we can agree somewhere.edit: I see you have taken it to the other thread. Thanks for that.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 01-August-2005 06:44 PM